On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 7:32 PM Bruno Haible <br...@clisp.org> wrote: > Hi Jim, > > > > I tried to make it clear the last time we discussed this (long ago!) > > > that I prefer to keep certain comments very near the function > > > definition (and implementation). > > Yes, I sort of remembered this. Therefore I asked for objections, and put > you in CC. > > > > I disagree with the premise that hash_delete should be renamed. That's > > > an API-breaking change. > > Yes, it's an API change. I applied the usual procedure for API changes in > gnulib: add the new API, then wait for more than a year, before the old API > can be removed. > > > That said, I will not object to your normalizing diffs. > > I'm confused now. Which of the three patches, or which parts of them, > do you wish to see reverted?
Thanks, but I can live with the status quo. No revert needed.
